Search Results (3)

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is a critical indicator in assessing the success of oncological treatments for head and neck malignancies, reflecting their impact on physiological functions and psychosocial well-being beyond mere survival. Treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) pose multiple functional and emotional challenges, and recent advancements underscore the necessity of evaluating post-treatment QoL. Objective: This literature review investigates the impact of oncological treatment on the QoL of patients with malignant head and neck cancers (oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, laryngeal) and identifies factors influencing their QoL index. Methodology: Using a PICO framework, studies from PubMed Central were analyzed, selected based on inclusion (English publications, full text, PROM results) and exclusion criteria. The last research was conducted on 6 April 2025. From 231 identified studies, 49 were included after applying filters (MeSH: “Quality of Life,” “laryngeal cancer,” “oral cavity cancer,” etc.). Data were organized in Excel, and the methodology adhered to PRISMA standards. Results: Treatment Impact: Oncological treatments significantly affect QoL, with acute post-treatment declines in functions such as speech, swallowing, and emotional well-being (anxiety, depression). Partial recovery depends on rehabilitative interventions. Influencing Factors: Treatment type, disease stage, socioeconomic, and demographic contexts influence QoL. De-escalated treatments and prompt rehabilitation improve recovery, while complications like trismus, dysphagia, or persistent hearing issues reduce long-term QoL. Assessment Tools: Standardized PROM questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35, MDADI, HADS) highlighted QoL variations. Studies from Europe, North America, and Asia indicate regional differences in outcomes. Limitations: Retrospective designs, small sample sizes, and PROM variability limit generalizability. Multicentric studies with extended follow-up are recommended. Conclusions: Oncological treatments for head and neck malignancies have a complex impact on QoL, necessitating personalized and multidisciplinary strategies. De-escalated therapies, early rehabilitation, and continuous monitoring are essential for optimizing functional and psychosocial outcomes. Methodological gaps highlight the need for standardized research. Full article

Background: The Sexual Health Scale (QLQ-SH22) is the only cancer-specific measure of sexual health. It has never been translated into Arabic. In order to envisage effective healthcare strategies that improve sexual quality of life, the validation of the Moroccan version of this scale is a crucial step in exploring the influence of cancer and its treatment on patients in the Moroccan context. In this regard, this study aimed to validate a Moroccan Arabic version among patients with cancer. Method: A total of 280 Moroccan patients with cancer participated in this study from August 2022 to April 2023. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the QLQ-SH22 was performed following the EORTC guidelines. Psychometric validation was explored using the reliability of internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Results: The analysis revealed a greater internal consistency for both sexual satisfaction (α = 0.83) and sexual pain (α = 0.86). The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated an excellent level of test–retest reliability (from 0.925 to 0.993). The CFA demonstrated high-performing model fit indices (χ2/df = 1.17, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.035, GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.94). The concurrent validity between the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-SH22 confirmed a strong correlation between the fatigue scales in both questionnaires (r = 0.69). This version showed good discrimination between known groups. Conclusions: The QLQ-SH22 Moroccan Arabic version has demonstrated a high level of reliability and validity, and therefore it is now ready for use. Full article

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer care, with increasing data demonstrating improved survival outcomes using ICIs among patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). ICIs are also associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) compared to chemotherapy, suggesting that ICIs may have favorable effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effects of ICIs on the HRQoL of patients with advanced GEC. Methods: We conducted an online bibliographic search on Medline via PubMed using MeSH-based terms to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of ICIs on HRQoL in patients with advanced GEC (we searched for all studies between 2018 and 2021). We included RCTs that incorporated ICIs as part of the intervention arm either as monotherapy (first or second line) or as a combination therapy (first-line) with another ICI or chemotherapy. We combined the HRQoL measures into a meta-analysis using standard random effects models, from which estimates of the average mean difference (MD) were obtained with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the heterogeneity of the study outcomes using the Q and I² statistics. Results: We identified 11 phase 3 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, with a mean enrollment of 820 patients. Eight RCTs used an ICI plus chemotherapy combination in the intervention arm, three had ICIs as monotherapy, and one had doublet ICI therapy in the intervention arm. All RCTs used chemotherapy for the control arm. Collectively, the trials reported 37 HRQoL measures using five different HRQoL tools. The pooled analysis favored the intervention over the control arm in terms of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) scores [MD 2.7 (95% CI 0.1 to 5.3), p < 0.041]. In a subgroup analysis of eight RCTs comparing combination therapy with ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, the effect estimates favored the ICI arm regarding the FACT-E [MD 2.7 (95% CI 0.1 to 5.3), p < 0.041] and the EORTC QLQ-OES18 pain scale [MD −2.2 (95% CI −4.3 to −0.2), p < 0.030]. Likewise, the effect estimates favored the ICI monotherapy arm over the chemotherapy arm regarding the QLQ-STO22 hair loss subscale [MD −23.2 (95% CI −29.7 to −16.7), p < 0.001], QLQ-STO22 dysphagia subscale [MD 6.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 11.7), p = 0.009], EQ-5D pain scale [MD 6.9 (95% CI 2.9 to 10.9), p < 0.001], and QLQ-OES18 saliva subscale [MD 5.8 (95% CI 0.1 to 11.6), p = 0.046]. Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, we found that the inclusion of ICIs as a first-line treatment for advanced GEC yielded better HRQoL outcomes than chemotherapy alone. Further research on the impact of ICIs on HRQoL is needed, with increasing evidence that ICIs improve the survival outcomes in patients with advanced GEC. Full article